Thread: Iranian Strategy In Iraq- CTC Occasional Paper

Ive been reading through this document, have about 20 odd pages left to go. It's been an interesting read, i have no comments to make on it at this time. I would be interested to read a similar paper on all the arms, money and militants that found their way into Iraq to support the Sunni insurgents and 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq', much of this from Saudi private donors. A subject that American think-tanks and politicians seem, unwilling to touch. Sure, we occasionally hear about mass-arrests in Saudi Arabia of so-called Al-Qaeda members and other international Jehadists, but where is there ever any independent verification of these stories, and of who these arrested individuals really are?

Im not trying to divert attention away from 'Iranian games' in Iraq. But my point is that there is a much larger regional game being played here that Iraq has fallen victim too. The Americans, Saudi Arabians and I.R. Iran have all found Iraq to be a necessary and even convenient battle ground for this.

I found the below article to be a good read from an ordinary Iranian perspective of the larger conflict taking place in the region. A conflict in which Iranians see Saudi Arabia as the aggressor. Some of the points presented in it may help others to form a better insight into why the Islamic Republic is manoeuvring itself in certain ways in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Many of these actually being defensive manoeuvres to a perceived Saudi Arabian and Salafist threat, rather than what some have dubbed to be a policy of 'Persian Shi'ite expansionism' of the I.R.

U.S. Sponsored "Saudi Arabia Terrorism" Continues
Oct 23, 2008
Arash Parsa

The princes of shadows: How to sponsor terrorism Saudi style

The Arabic-language TV channel al-Arabiya has recently broadcast an interview with Abdul Malik Rigi, the ringleader of the terrorist group Jundollah, which has been active in the southeastern Iranian province of Sistan-Baluchestan.

The satellite channel also aired footage showing the execution of the Iranian hostages that had been held by the terrorist group. The gruesome pictures were aired without the consideration of the fact that the hostages' families might be watching the TV channel.

Broadcasting violent pictures is considered a blatant violation of journalistic standards even if there were not any concerns about the hostages' families, and many TV channels have so far been boycotted for such unprofessional acts.

Al-Arabiya has also been using the term 'Popular Resistance Movement of Iran' to name a terrorist organization which according to its leader comprises of nearly 200 gunmen and resembles a criminal gang rather than a political movement. There is no need to be reminded that using the term 'Popular Resistance Movement of Iran' may mislead the public into believing that the group represents the Iranian people.

Hassan Fahs, the former head of al-Arabiya's Tehran office, whose visa was not renewed by Iranian officials, had previously admitted that the satellite station had been providing a 'special coverage' of the Jundullah story. He has defended the performance of his news outlet and described it as 'completely professional'. Of course, nobody asked 'this professional journalist,' why al-Arabiya's reporter never posed the question about how a gang of nearly 200 unpopular bandits could topple one of the most powerful governments of the Middle East.

Let us honestly answer this question: if one of the Iranian-based TV channels aired an interview with Osama bin Laden, wouldn't we see American tanks marching on the streets of Iranian cities (of course, if Washington had the power to wage such a war against Iran!)?

In a world where a US Senator proposes that the Iranian Arab-language TV channel al-Alam be blacklisted as a terrorist organization simply because of broadcasting an interview in which a man had 'threatened a US warship in his remarks,' no one blames al-Arabiya for its interview with this 'petty terrorist', who ran a show of hostage execution. Instead, the satellite channel has been lauded for its professionalism.

Al-Arbaiya TV channel, which belongs to the MBC group and at least is partially funded by the Saudi Royal family, certainly has humane motivations. It is 'concerned' about Iran's Sunni minority who freely practice their religion in the country. It is, of course, humane to ignore Saudi Arabia's Shia minority, whose members live in a country in which you are not authorized to be anything but a Sunni Muslim.

Shia means trouble, so who cares if no Shia Muslim in Saudi Arabia dares pray based on his or her religion in public.

It was humane motivations that prompted the MBC group to launch a Persian language movie channel which screens 'Alexander the Great', the success story of an arch foe of the Persian Empire, who has been known as 'Gojastak' (damned or evil) among Iranians over his atrocities in the country.

All Saudi-sponsored measures against Iran and Iranians have been based on philanthropic motivations and the moral principles of the great teachers of ethics like Machiavelli: whenever we see nobody buys our thoughts and we are losing our leverage in the region, forget humanity, deal a blow to your rival, no matter how unfair your tactic is.

One cannot also ignore the role of Pakistan's intelligence service (I.S.I) in Rigi's show. While a 'simple al-Arabiya reporter' can easily find Rigi in 'Iran's mountains' (note: Iran's Mountains is the name of a range of mountains in Pakistan!), how is it that Pakistani security apparatus with its sophisticated equipments and tactics does not know anything about the whereabouts of Rigi, bin Laden, Taliban leaders and tens of other criminals. Even an average person with an average IQ knows that fighting for years (as we have seen in the case of the Taliban) is impossible without logistical, military and intelligence support from a foreign country.

The interesting point is that I.S.I-- a shadowy entity which has always been as a government within the government and nobody knows who is in charge of it-- is financially supported by Saudi Arabia.

Yet nobody poses the question why we could see the traces of 'the Kingdom' in almost all major terrorist activities in the region.

Isn't it Saudi Arabia that promotes a version of 'Islam' which sanctions the execution of prisoners of war, a heinous practice against all Islamic values?



It was just a few years ago that Prince Bandar bin Sultan a.k.a Bandar Bush, (one the best friends of Bush) was widely accused by the media of brokering a deal with al-Qaeda under which Saudi's would funnel millions of dollars to the terror network 'to prevent the group from carrying out operations inside the oil-rich kingdom'.

We can easily realize Saudi's role in supporting the Taliban, a savage group which did not respect the world's cultural heritage, massacred Hazara civilians over their religious beliefs and showed that it is not committed to any international norms and regulations.

Based on confirmed reports, Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former Saudi intelligence chief, is believed to have had dealings with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan before the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Saudi Arabia is reportedly to mediate the talks between the Taliban and the West. The negotiations would certainly be a black record for the West which has always been adopting the policy of appeasement in dealing with tyrannical regimes, dictators and terrorists throughout history.

The Saudis have had a hand in the recent violence in Lebanon involving Salafi groups. Of course, it is still wise to be aware of 'the Shia threat' and join forces with those who are complaining about conspiracies to form an imaginary 'Shia Crescent' in the Middle East.

Isn't there anyone out there to ask who are the real sponsors of terrorism, those who make deals with terrorists across the world or those who are guilty of supporting the Palestinian and Lebanese nations?

Isn't it true that each petrodollar that Saudi Arabia earns will eventually turns into a bullet to penetrate the body of an innocent or a bomb that would fill the graves with bodies of children and women?

Who does not know that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are a product of the opportunistic policies of Carter, Kissinger, Reagan and other Western politicians plus Saudi money? Of course, there should be an al-Qaeda, otherwise how could the neocons wage their quixotic crusade? How could the West find a pretext to justify its discriminative approach to a Muslim minority in 'the democratic West' and the violation of civilian rights and privacy?

Oh, and don't forget! Everything has a reasonable explanation: we have good terrorists and bad terrorists. Sponsors of terrorism are also categorized into good and bad ones. The good terrorism-sponsors are princes with petrodollars in their pockets and the bad ones are those who call for a referendum in occupied Palestine.

You can run a kingdom in which no woman are allowed to drive or vote and of course nobody will be concerned about human rights situations in the country, because you are a good violator of human rights. You also can choose to live in a republic, a bad violator of human rights, in which women can vote, drive and lead a normal life.

It is easy to be a good human rights violator, just smile at the White House. Try this formula and you will never look back.

In this way you could keep your nukes while witnessing big powers fighting each other over selling advanced nuclear technology to you. Otherwise, even running a nuclear power plant might be dangerous.


© Iranian.ws